While I concede that una cum does not mean, ‘in union with’, it is only in the explicit sense of the phrase. If it means prayers for a man you don't believe to be Pope, as if he were the Pope, isn't that, implicitly, 'in union with"? Since I accept the premise that Benedict XVI is a heretic (which position I assume is held by many, if not most, of those participating in this forum), to pray for Joseph Ratzinger that he return to the Church is one thing (and, hopefully, we all do), but to pray for him as Benedict XVI within this context would be an implicit admission that I accept a non-Catholic as Pope. If I do not, and inasmuch as it is also ‘my’ Mass, una cum in the implicit sense would be paradoxical and inconsistent. Consequently, I avoid the Indult Mass said within two miles of my home, and those of groups like the SSPX where the corporate position is, unquestionably, that Benedict XVI is Pope, and all indications are that most of its priests adhere to that position. (Whether they do so privately is another matter altogether.) I have nothing against those attending the Indult, nor those who avail themselves of the services of the SSPX, but - I can't do it.

From the excerpted references you provided, it would seem that, in either sense, the name of the Pope and the local ordinary are inextricably entwined. It would be interesting to know whether priests who include Benedict in the Canon also mention the Ordinary. Afterall, ‘all politics are local’, and I don’t think it an exaggeration that the misdeeds of the local bishops often exceed that for which we accuse Benedict XVI. If you accept Benedict XVI as the visible head of the Church, they are linked such that you could hardly exclude his representative.

...

Again, inasmuch as we offer the Mass through the priest, are we, then, indicating that we are 'in union with' the Pope (and Bishop) named? That should be an interesting dilemma for those priests/bishops who accept Benedict XVI, and yet refuse to really be subject to him by operating outside his authority, and that of the local Bishop, by building a parallel structure within the confines of his diocese? (Not that they don't have good reasons for doing so, and should do, for the good of souls.)

Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:20 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Chris Browne wrote:

Surprisingly, I do possess several of the references you cite, but they are not at hand ...

No, but you appear to have obtained sufficient assistance in any case.

I'm not sure what you expect to see in response to this, but it would seem to be a long and winding road around the problem that you cannot show that the layman in the pew is deemed to agree with whatever name the priest mentions silently up there in the sanctuary.

And for the tenth time, this would be why nobody noticed the problem for several decades, and when they did, they were the recent convert Martin Gwynne, and the Cassiciacum theorist Guerard des Lauriers, and why despite these brilliant discoveries, almost nobody has followed them even yet, and why Fr. Cekada managed not to notice the "problem" himself for so long, and why he has yet to say "By the way, I have changed my position" and instead feels the need to accuse others of causing scandal, and yet does not feel the need to make any reparation for the scandal he must necessarily be guilty of causing himself (according to his own present theory).

The Catholic religion is riddled with paradoxes. It's one of the lovely things about it. One of those paradoxes is that it is perfectly possible for a man to think that Benedict is pope and remain a perfectly sound Catholic, whilst the chap with the clearer view about Benedict's particular ecclesiastical status has managed to get himself into such a mental and emotional twist in his horror at his confere's blindness that he eventually engages in a slow waltz into schism, as Fr. Cekada once acutely and vividly commented. We should all take his warning seriously and avoid that waltz. Paradoxical as it may seem.

I'm not sure what you expect to see in response to this, but it would seem to be a long and winding road around the problem that you cannot show that the layman in the pew is deemed to agree with whatever name the priest mentions silently up there in the sanctuary.

Why WOULDN'T they be deemed to agree with whatever name the priest mentions silenly? Perhaps before the Council it wasn't necessary, but now, unfortunately, it is. Where has it been shown that it doesn't matter? It cannot be something immaterial, or of no consequence.

Quote:

And for the tenth time...

Sorry! Sheesh....

If, because of the paradoxes, we risk a "slow waltz into schism", why even bother to discuss it at all? Any of this, especially when those who are trained in this science cannot even agree! Why have this forum? All it does is appeal to pride and sow dissent.

Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:12 pm

JakeRM

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 amPosts: 63

John Lane wrote:

he eventually engages in a slow waltz into schism, as Fr. Cekada once acutely and vividly commented. We should all take his warning seriously and avoid that waltz. Paradoxical as it may seem.

That turn of phrase Fr. Cekada used struck me too. He really does have a talent in creating masterpieces with words like a real Michelangelo, I gotta say. Notwithstanding the occasional Giovanni Bastianini or two of late.

_________________JRM

Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:10 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Chris Browne wrote:

Why WOULDN'T they be deemed to agree with whatever name the priest mentions silently? Perhaps before the Council it wasn't necessary, but now, unfortunately, it is. Where has it been shown that it doesn't matter? It cannot be something immaterial, or of no consequence.

I think this is a prime example of what John Daly describes as "impressionistic thinking." It amounts to an exasperated, "It just has to be so!"

Why?

In my mental universe, when a thought occurs to me and on reflection I can't find a good argument to prove it, the reaction is to dump the fantasy and move on. I do understand that for many people intellectual life doesn't work that way, and they would rather attach themselves to their unfounded impression like a limpet, sacrificing all for it (especially justice and charity), but mate, for your own good don't imitate them. They're dangerous.

Why, if it just has to be so, did nobody notice for so long?

And who for a moment said that it does not matter whom the priest names? It matters. But that isn't the question. The question is, on what grounds do we say that the layman is deemed or assumed to agree with whomever the priest names? Now, in the case of a person condemned by name by the Holy See, the situation is radically different. Then, by remaining in communion with the excommunicate and mentioning his name in the Canon, the priest would be opposing the authority of the Church and showing himself to be in some kind of unhealthy sympathy with the excommunicate.

But in the present circumstances the status of Benedict could only be described as “legitimately disputed.” That is, the Church has not judged the matter. Is the priest disobeying the Church by putting the odious name in the Canon? Of course not, and I don’t think anybody really seriously suggests it.

Do you see the difference? Could it be any more stark?

Chris Browne wrote:

Why have this forum? All it does is appeal to pride and sow dissent.

I don't understand this. I would have thought that whatever you think of this forum, the one thing you'd not consider as a fitting epithet would be a sower of dissent. I think generally those who dislike us are most offended by our failure to approve of, and to foster, the dissent that they wish to sow amongst traditional Catholics.

I don't understand this. I would have thought that whatever you think of this forum, the one thing you'd not consider as a fitting epithet would be a sower of dissent. I think generally those who dislike us are most offended by our failure to approve of, and to foster, the dissent that they wish to sow amongst traditional Catholics.

Please reread the entire paragraph, it would put it in context. I did not say I didn't value the forum. I just said , if it risks schism, then we would be better off not discussing any of this. To continue would appeal to pride and sow dissension. It was a general statement, not directed at you, personally.

I apologize if you took it that way. No offense was intended.

Chris

Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:18 am

eliz carroll

Dear Chris, I think it needs to be discussed so as to prevent dissent and discord among Catholics. As for the pride, we all need to mortify ourselves and watch our step. It never hurts to be reminded of that!

Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:26 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Chris Browne wrote:

I apologize if you took it that way. No offense was intended.

No problem, Chris, but I wasn't offended; I was maintaining standards. Glad to hear it wasn't necessary.

As for schism, I am even more glad to hear that you are concerned about that. Now, if it concerns you that the few people who chat here might end up in schism from each other, you'll now doubt understand our much greater concern about the really big nascent schism being fostered by those who accuse the four hundred priests of the SSPX (and by implication the tens of thousands of laymen who rely upon them) of being "schismatic" and of offering or assisting at non-Catholic Masses.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum